Atheism: A belief?

[Magic Man]

However, I was replying to filthy tugboat, and he was the one whose statements corroborated my opinion. I have speculated about this in the past, and you, among others, rejected that speculation, as you do again here. However, tugboat did seem to agree with the point that the value of broadening the class of people we call "atheists" would have a desirable social impact--to reduce the stigma that people associate with atheism.

As I've explained to you before, that doesn't mean that's why he uses his definition. It only means that he realizes that there's a nice side effect of using his definition. You take that to mean he must be using it just for that purpose, when in reality, it doesn't point in that direction.

 

[Magic Man]

Well said. To me, rationalizing "non-theist" or "igtheist" to be "atheist" is just so much extra work. The terms work perfectly well on their own.

Yeah, you guys keep telling yourselves that we're the ones rationalizing here. It won't ever become true, but at least maybe it'll make you guys feel better about your own attempts to rationalize your incorrect beliefs of "atheism".

 

[Magic Man]

Without an idea of what 'God' is, there is nothing to lack belief in.

OK, it's very simple. There is a concept called "God". Either you hold the belief that this concept exists or you don't. I don't have to know what a gleebeldorf is to lack it. There are many material things I lack that I don't know of. I still lack those things, even though I don't know about them. A person who doesn't know what God is still lacks the belief that God exists.

Why is that so hard to comprehend after 1,300 pages?

 

[Magic Man]

That is correct... unless, as it has been, it is maintained that this general definition of atheism is not a belief. Atheism is only "not a belief" when someone both a) lacks the belief that gods exist" and b) lacks the belief that gods do not exist.

If both a and b are assumed-- which they must be in order for one to say that atheism is "not a belief"-- then Negative Belief atheism cannot be logically included in that umbrella definition.

No. The general criterion for atheism is lacking belief in the existence of gods. Along with that an atheist might also not hold the belief "Gods don't exist", or he might hold that belief. Atheism is not a belief. It can include beliefs, though. The big circle is atheism. The smaller circle is strong atheism, a subset of the broad term "atheism".

It works both ways, friend. It can neither be said that atheism is a belief, nor can it be said that atheism is not a belief (when you are talking about atheism as a whole). The best that can be said is that atheism is not necessarily a belief.

Not really. It's is quite factual to say atheism is not a belief. You can hold the belief "Gods don't exist". That is most certainly a belief, but that does not make atheism a belief, since atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods.

 

[Falvlun]

No. The general criterion for atheism is lacking belief in the existence of gods. Along with that an atheist might also not hold the belief "Gods don't exist", or he might hold that belief. Atheism is not a belief. It can include beliefs, though. The big circle is atheism. The smaller circle is strong atheism, a subset of the broad term "atheism".

You yourself showed how you can not make a claim about the general definition of something that contradicts specific examples about that something. Claiming that "atheism is not a belief" is not compatible with Negative Belief atheism.

When you say "atheism is not a belief" you are claiming that atheism holds no beliefs regarding the existence of god. That is not true for certain subsets of atheism. Hence, it cannot be true for atheism as a whole.

 

[Willamena]

The "concept of god" of which I have a concept. It's all about layers, baby! :danana:

If you don't know it, how could you "not know it"?

Just so.

 

[Orias]

Indeed, for those atheists, the ones who hold the belief that god doesn't exist, atheism is a belief. For those of us who do not hold a belief either way, atheism isn't a belief. It's quite simple if you pay attentin.

That was recognized long before this thread was even made. It is just that the essence of "atheism" entails, "without God". Sure, I would agree that many atheists in fact describe themselves as not holding any "God" position, but then the term is just being misrepresented.

Yeah, I'm not one of those. I don't lack a belief in god, I simply don't have one.

You simply don't have a belief in "God", besides that you don't have one?

Okay, none of which makes atheism a belief.

Well, it is commonly understood that which people believe, often references belief. In it's most natural proceedings of course.

I'd like to see you support this statement, among the others which you so casually deny as being wrong.

Nope - knowing how easily confused people are, I answer I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god(s). Something I've said repeatedly that people won't seem to absorb. I try to keep my answers simple, yet accurate. The simple statement I don't believe in [the existence of] god(s), doesn't really state fully what my position is.

It does though.

You don't believe in "God(s)", yet you don't believe that "God(s)" do exist either.

The description of one "without god(s)" isn't a belief, it's a description/label.

You should tell that to Mball among others.

Your refusal or inability to understand my reason doesn't make me stupid. By saying I'm acting stupid, you're either questioning my sincerity or my intelligence, and don't kid yourself that you're in a position to judge either one.

No, I just am capable of realizing that you are of greater understanding than you lead to be.

You only chose to see what I write, not what I mean. But then again, I never should of expected to show me the same courtesy I have shown you over the months.

 

[Copernicus]

As I've explained to you before, that doesn't mean that's why he uses his definition. It only means that he realizes that there's a nice side effect of using his definition. You take that to mean he must be using it just for that purpose, when in reality, it doesn't point in that direction.

Yes, and I suppose he just brought it up as a random comment that had nothing to do with the discussion we were having. The more I discuss this subject with you folks, the more I get the feeling that this is all about posturing in debates with theists. You see a real advantage to claiming that atheism is not a belief per se. Otherwise, why would you spend so much time in heated argument over it? My reason for taking a strong position on this is not just because I am interested in word usage (which I am), but because it really does mince words and cause confusion in debates. Atheism has always been taken as a negative belief, and those who claim "lack of belief" quite often behave no differently from those who embrace it as a negative belief. Why insist on splitting hairs like this unless you get something out of it? Tugboat was just getting to the heart of the matter when he pointed out the desired effect of not using "common usage" as the basis for the definition.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The more I discuss this subject with you folks, the more I get the feeling that this is all about posturing in debates with theists. You see a real advantage to claiming that atheism is not a belief per se. Otherwise, why would you spend so much time in heated argument over it? My reason for taking a strong position on this is not just because I am interested in word usage (which I am), but because it really does mince words and cause confusion in debates. Atheism has always been taken as a negative belief, and those who claim "lack of belief" quite often behave no differently from those who embrace it as a negative belief. Why insist on splitting hairs like this unless you get something out of it?

I split hairs because being a "strong" atheist is just as irrational as being a theist. Coming from a skeptical worldview, "weak" atheism is the only rational position to hold. I realize others aren't as strict about being rational in their views though.

 

[Copernicus]

I split hairs because being a "strong" atheist is just as irrational as being a theist. Coming from a skeptical worldview, "weak" atheism is the only rational position to hold. I realize others aren't as strict about being rational in their views though.

That's an interesting claim. I guess it depends on how you define "strong atheist". For me, it is just an atheist who is willing to list positive reasons for rejecting belief in gods. There is nothing irrational about that, as there are many good reasons to reject belief. On the other hand, you may believe that the word "god" has no coherent meaning--a position that I do consider irrational.

 

[Magic Man]

You yourself showed how you can not make a claim about the general definition of something that contradicts specific examples about that something. Claiming that "atheism is not a belief" is not compatible with Negative Belief atheism.

Yes, it is. Every person who holds the belief "Gods don't exist" also lacks the belief "Gods exist". Those two things are far from incompatible.

When you say "atheism is not a belief" you are claiming that atheism holds no beliefs regarding the existence of god. That is not true for certain subsets of atheism. Hence, it cannot be true for atheism as a whole.

It is true that all atheists lack the belief "Gods exist". They may also hold other beliefs like "Gods don't exist". Therefore the thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods, meaning atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief.

 

[Magic Man]

You should tell that to Mball among others.

Why? I've been trying to tell you that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's an interesting claim. I guess it depends on how you define "strong atheist". For me, it is just an atheist who is willing to list positive reasons for rejecting belief in gods. There is nothing irrational about that, as there are many good reasons to reject belief. On the other hand, you may believe that the word "god" has no coherent meaning--a position that I do consider irrational.

God has many meanings - some more coherent than others.

As an aside, what rational basis do you have for believing that some force or entity, which could be defined as a god, doesn't exist? How can you rationally say that that possibility doesn't exist?

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, and I suppose he just brought it up as a random comment that had nothing to do with the discussion we were having.

It has already been brought up multiple times. Besides, whether or not he brings it up out of the blue doesn't matter at all. Your reasoning skills aren't doing too well in this thread, and I suspect it's largely due to your strong bias in the matter.

The more I discuss this subject with you folks, the more I get the feeling that this is all about posturing in debates with theists. You see a real advantage to claiming that atheism is not a belief per se.

How can that be? You made it clear from the beginning that you felt that was why we were making the claim. All you've done since then is make our claims fit your predetermined view. It's not much different from a religious person making events fit a prophecy they want to believe in. It's not that anything we've said should be taken as us trying for better posturing in debates with theists. It's that you desperately want to see it that way.

Otherwise, why would you spend so much time in heated argument over it? My reason for taking a strong position on this is not just because I am interested in word usage (which I am), but because it really does mince words and cause confusion in debates.

Another example of your poor reasoning in this thread (as opposed to most others where your reasoning is very good). It's a silly question. I'm here for the same reason you are, because I'm interested in word usage, and because it's nice to keep things clear and make communication better in debates.

Atheism has always been taken as a negative belief

Sorry, but no, it hasn't. I think part of your problem is just an ignorant assumption of certain things like this.

and those who claim "lack of belief" quite often behave no differently from those who embrace it as a negative belief.

That may be, but it's irrelevant.

Why insist on splitting hairs like this unless you get something out of it?

I don't know. Why do you insist on splitting hairs? What are you getting out of it? And why do you assume that we can't get something out of it just like you? What you're doing is problematic. You claim that you have an interest in this debate that's not clouding your view on it, while simultaneously claiming that we can't possibly have the same interest. It's like claiming there has to be a God because something had to start the universe.

 

[Copernicus]

God has many meanings - some more coherent than others.

I don't worry about the alleged incoherent ones. In my experience, people who claim that a deity is ineffable behave towards, and talk about, that deity as if it were extremely effable--up to the point when asked to define the deity. You can't always take linguistic claims at face value. Linguistic behavior is subject to empirical investigation, but you have to know how to go about it.

As an aside, what rational basis do you have for believing that some force or entity, which could be defined as a god, doesn't exist? How can you rationally say that that possibility doesn't exist?

I do not say that the possibility doesn't exist, and I have actually said the opposite in this thread more than once. However, your question is a good one. I have been thinking about starting a new thread on that subject, but I haven't gotten around to it. The last time I posted on the subject was over a year ago: Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods.

 

[Orias]

Why? I've been trying to tell you that.

You've been insisting that your beliefs, are not actually beliefs.

Yes, "lack of belief" is a description/label of One who believes in a Godless antidote.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, I just am capable of realizing that you are of greater understanding than you lead to be.

You only chose to see what I write, not what I mean. But then again, I never should of expected to show me the same courtesy I have shown you over the months.

Trust me, I'm aware of my level of understanding, and you may want to take your own advice.

Anyway, I'm done engaging in these meaningless circular arguments. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I know that atheism for me isn't a belief, even though it may be for you. If it makes you feel better to think that atheism is a belief for me, feel free.

 

[Magic Man]

You've been insisting that your beliefs, are not actually beliefs.

No, I've been insisting that my lack of belief is not a belief. I have beliefs about atheism and many other things, and those are beliefs. My atheism, however, is not a belief because it's a lack of a belief.

Yes, "lack of belief" is a description/label of One who believes in a Godless antidote.

Aside from the unhelpful wording, this is what I'm trying to tell you. "Atheism" is a label applied to "lack of belief in gods". So, the label "atheism" is not a belief, nor does it describe a belief.

 

[Orias]

Trust me, I'm aware of my level of understanding, and you may want to take your own advice.

Sigh, you only chose to see what you want out of my argument. You have done nothing to provide any substantial evidence that "atheism" is not a belief, besides your own beliefs.

Anyway, I'm done engaging in these meaningless circular arguments. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I know that atheism for me isn't a belief, even though it may be for you. If it makes you feel better to think that atheism is a belief for me, feel free.

It was rather one sided.

No, I've been insisting that my lack of belief is not a belief. I have beliefs about atheism and many other things, and those are beliefs. My atheism, however, is not a belief because it's a lack of a belief.

Atheism is a "lack of belief in "God(s)", yet you are so certain that you believe that's what it merely is.

Aside from the unhelpful wording, this is what I'm trying to tell you. "Atheism" is a label applied to "lack of belief in gods". So, the label "atheism" is not a belief, nor does it describe a belief.

Actually it does describe a belief, of not having one, or "lacking" one.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It was rather one sided.

Yeah, well that tends to happen when I tear apart nonsensical statements using clear, coherent, rational arguments.